Form and Function

Status
Not open for further replies.

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
This is a continuation of the discussion started here.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Piscean
The borders between word classes are sometimes fuzzy.



By fuzzy, I read 'confused'.


Most modern grammarians appear to feel that both form and function are vital elements in effective definition.


That's because it is not possible to define words solely by their form outside of their use in context. In my view it is a mistake to say that young is an adjective. It's untrue and ultimately meaningless. What you can say is that it can be an adjective and it can also be a noun. The best you can possibly do is say that statistically, it is very likely to be an adjective. But then the response to that would be why use the word 'adjective' at all? Why not just use the label 'modifier'?


Not so long as you keep the two things distinct.


But this is not possible, as is being demonstrated here. What we're discussing is the confusion of form and function as I perceive it in your (and many notable grammarians') view of grammar.


Form. To say (for example) simply that a word that has a comparative and superlative form is an adjective unhelpful. Some adjectives don't, and comparative and superlative forms forms are typical of many adverbs.


Yes. So in I ran fastest, you accept that fastest is an adverb. I'm not clear on whether you regard it as an adjective as well?


Function:To say (for example) that a word that modifies a noun is an adjective is equally unhelpful. Nouns, prepositional phrases and whole clauses can also modify a noun.


Yes, I think it isn't very helpful. I don't know about 'equally', though. My current view is that it's a bit less unhelpful.



quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Piscean
It is a pronoun.



Again, by what criteria do you measure this? What evidence is there? It is preceded by very, which is good evidence of it not being a pronoun. Is the reasoning you're using purely statistical? I mean, is it simply the fact that it is almost always used in the way that pronouns are used which makes it a pronoun? I don't really see how other uses of the same word have a bearing on this word used in this specific context. Do you consider very you as an adjective phrase with a pronoun as a head?



When the word Italian refers to language or a person, it is a noun. When it refers to the nationality/origin of a person or thing, it is an adjective.


Now you seem to be confusing form and function, by claiming that the class depends on what it refers to.


The same thing happens with other word classes: act can be a noun or verb, fear a verb or adjective.


But I'd like you to clarify two things before we move forward. 1) Do you consider act as a noun or a verb or as both or as neither? 2) Does it depend on how the word is used in the context or not?


It depends on both form and function. In His fear showed in his face, for example, fear is a noun because it is preceded by a determiner and could be used with a plural suffix (form) and because it is the subject of the verb/sentence, and could be the direct object in His face showed his fear (function).


The fact that it is preceded by a determiner (function) is not strong evidence. We can say the rich, the poor, the many, etc. The fact that it can be used with a plural suffix (form) is very strong evidence. The fact that it is the subject/object (function) is not strong evidence. You cannot use function as the criteria by which to classify form. This is a confusion of form and function. This is my main point.



As you suggested yourself, we can say, with the same meaning, The Chinese people are coming. We can't say The Italians people are coming. This is because Chines is an adjective and Itlian is a noun.


My point was that the Italians and the Chinese mean the Italian people and the Chinese people. We ought really to say the Chineses, but there is (or was at some point in the past) a phonological resistance, as it were, which disallowed a plural suffix in the regularisation process. The words ending with /z/ and the other sounds in the group created an irregular pattern.


so there appears to be no phonological objection to such forms.


There doesn't have to be, but there was in the case of referring to Chinese/French, etc. We can be as creative and novel as we wish when there is a need for us to do so.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Posted by Piscean:

Originally Posted by jutfrank
In my view it is a mistake to say that young is an adjective. It's untrue and ultimately meaningless. What you can say is that it can be an adjective and it can also be a noun.



You can say that if you wish. Many modern grammarians would not.


The best you can possibly do is say that statistically, it is very likely to be an adjective. But then the response to that would be why use the word 'adjective' at all? Why not just use the label 'modifier'?


That's fine if you wish to refer solely to the function. Remember, however, that not all modifiers are adjectives.


But this is not possible, as is being demonstrated here. What we're discussing is the confusion of form and function as I perceive it in your (and many notable grammarians') view of grammar.


I don't think it is we who are confusing them.


Yes. So in I ran fastest, you accept that fastest is an adverb. I'm not clear on whether you regard it as an adjective as well?


In that sentence we use the adverb. In The cheetah is the fastest animal in the world, we use the adjective. It just happens that they have the same form.



1) Do you consider act as a noun or a verb or as both or as neither? 2) Does it depend on how the word is used in the context or not?


In She was renowned for her beauty, we use the noun beauty. In She was beautiful, we use the adjective beautiful.

In Her act was despicable, we use the noun act. In They act despicably, we use the verb act.


This is a confusion of form and function.


I think I will leave matters there. There is a limit to the number of times I can try to make a point without repeating myself , and I think we have gone beyond the point of offering anything of interest or value to people who come to this forum for help in learning to communicate in English.

As a teacher of English, I have never found the use of word class labels very helpful in facilitating communication skills except as a shorthand when both teacher and learner use understand the same terminology.

As a grammarian, I have found the changes in approach to word classes over the last half century or so fascinating. I don't agree with all the modern ideas - but I have found many of them more logically consistent than those I was taught in the 1950s and early 1960s. Incidentally, some of these ideas did not suddenly materialise in recent years. Otto Jespersen was discussing them in his The Philosophy of Grammar in 1924,
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Yes. So in I ran fastest, you accept that fastest is an adverb. I'm not clear on whether you regard it as an adjective as well?


In that sentence we use the adverb. In The cheetah is the fastest animal in the world, we use the adjective. It just happens that they have the same form

1) Do you consider
act as a noun or a verb or as both or as neither? 2) Does it depend on how the word is used in the context or not?

She was renowned for her beauty, we use the noun beauty. In She was beautiful, we use the adjective beautiful. In Her act was despicable, we use the noun act. In They act despicably, we use the verb act.

So in one sentence, fastest is in the adverb form and in the next, fastest is in the adjective form? Two different formal labels for the same form. So therefore the label that is relevant in each case is determined by the function of the word in the sentence. Is that what you mean? Because I don't see how that's different from what I'm saying.

 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Apologies for the disastrous formatting. I'm not able to correct it. :-?
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I see. That's nice and clear. So to summarise: the function determines which label applies, from a set of possible labels, which means:

The word form fastest can be classed as an adjective or adverb (depending on function).
The word form act can be classed as a noun or verb (depending on function).

My question is: how do we know this? From where do we get the set of possible labels? What limits this set? With fastest, you make reference to the suffix, but what is there about the form of the word act that limits it to being only either noun or verb? It seems to me that it must be function that does this.

In Only the good die young, do you mean to say that the only formal class available to the word good is 'adjective', and so therefore it must be an adjective regardless of its use as a reference to people? Is this also true for the functionally adverbial use in I'm doing good, thanks?

And what if the function of a word is such that it conflicts with the set of possible word classes? What then would determine the class? In my example, It's very you, you said that the word class of you is pronoun, despite its being modified by very. If 'pronoun' refers to the form, how would a grammarian refer to the function?

In the English language, the form of the word English is interesting in that it has both an adjective suffix (-ish), obviously associated with adjectives, and a capital letter, which is associated with proper nouns. Functionally, it seems to be a modifier. So how do we select the word class in this case. Also, what would you consider the word class in I speak English, where it seems to me to be adverbial?

What I'm trying to answer:

1) How do we know what are the possible classes that a word can fall into?

2) If the word class is at least partly determined by its role in a sentence, then when there is a conflict between function and form, how do we decide on word class when more than one option is available?

3) Is it reasonable to accept that if a word is used in context, in a meaningful sentence, in a way that conflicts with the set of possible classes, then this set of possible classes should be extended to include this?

4) When there is a conflict of internal form (as in English), how do we select word class, if not by function?

5) If the class of a word is determined by its form as well as its function, then how much weight should be given to each?
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
We know that the noun act is a noun, because it can have a plural form, it can have a genitive form, it can be preceded immediately by determiners, it can be modified by adjectives, etc.

We know that the verb act is a verb because it takes a suffix in the third person present simple, and -ed suffix in the past tense, it has an -ing form, etc.
Sure, but what I was asking is what limits a word to its possible word classes? What makes act only a noun or verb?

Allow me to change example. If we know that act can be verb or noun from the various ways it can express form (acts, acted), how do we know that good can be an adjective? Is it just from the way it can be used as a modifier?

We know that good can also be a noun (the good of mankind), and arguably an adverb, so how do we determine its class in Only the good die young? I realise that you've answered this question already by saying that it only has meaning when seen as a modifier of an implied 'people', and I think this is a convincing argument. But if we are now determining word class with relation to meaning, is it not possible to understand good to be identical to good people, in the same way that in the good of mankind it can be understood as identical to something like the good cause? If so, then it should properly be classed as a noun. After all, it is the head of a noun phrase.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Okay, I feel we're getting somewhere. Thank you for your responses.

Nothing but the fact that native speakers have so far used act only as a noun and a verb.

Yes. The class is determined by precedented usage. So I wonder how some people could consider up in She put the tent up as a preposition instead of a particle adverb, when there is such heavy and common usage. The same with all other phrasal verb particles, and with good as adverb in response to How are you? and with fast as adverb in drive fast and so on.

Just to be clear about your own position: Are you happy to accept up as adjective in Your computer is up? If so, is this then based on its precedented use as an adjective, ie., the weight of all the times it has ever been used as a modifier? That is, that what determines the word class is usage over form?

Regarding how we can know that good is an adjective:

... from the fact that it has (admittedly highly irregular) comparative forms, and that it can be modified by an adverb.

I would dispute that better and best are forms of good. They both sound completely different and have separate etymologies so it's hard to accept that they are expressions of form of the root adjective good. My claim is that the only measure by which we class good as an adjective is its usage as a modifier.


The difference between good in your two examples is that in Only the good die young, good must imply people or, if we are talking about some other group of living things, that group. In the good of mankind, we understand good as an abstract concept. It is not synonymous with good cause (or any other noun).

Okay. I don't want to take this point any further at the moment because I'm not sufficiently convinced either way. I just wanted to know your position.



To attempt to draw some conclusions, this is the main thrust of my argument so far:

1) The criteria we use when classing words as nouns/adjectives, etc, constitute a range of both formal and functional features. We know the class by what forms it can express and by how it can be used in context.

2) In some cases, there are only functional features which are available to determine word class. Sometimes the only way we can tell the class is by usage. Either a particular use in context or by a general precedented usage.

3) There are always functional features. Language does not exist outside of usage.

4) Therefore, function takes precedence over form as an indicator of word class. When the formal features of a word dictate a certain class, but the use dictates a different class, then usage takes precedence.

Please criticise and agree/disagree.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
If we have a clear idea of our criteria for the categories, then there is normally no conflict. The only conflict is between different schools of grammar. I am sure that for many people, brick in brick wall is an adjective because it clearly modifies wall. For Quirk et al, Huddleston and Pullum, Aarts, and me, it has none of the formal characteristics of an adjective (bricker, brickest, very brick, etc). It is a noun(-modifier).

Okay, yes, that's clear.


I am not sure that I understand this. If you are asking if a new word class can be invented if a word is used in a way that cannot be slotted into the existing word classes, then the answer is yes.

Yes, that's what I meant.

For our first grammarian, adjectives were a sub-class of nouns. It was not until the end of the 18th century that adjective was universally recognised as a distinct word class. In our lifetimes we have seen the class of determiner/determinative added to the sets of most writers.

I like the determiner/determinative distinction as it separates form and function nicely. If we really want to avoid confusion of form and function, why don't we do this across the board?

How long is a piece of string?

Measure it and find out!

Writers on grammar do not always agree on which characteristics are key. I, for example, do not go along with H & P on some of the words they have added to their preposition word class.

If you don't mind, which words are they? I have a copy of Aarts, which I like, but not an H&P. I would be interested, purely as material for discussion which classes you don't like and why.

By the way, you mentioned a few posts ago Otto Jespersen, for whom I have great admiration. Thank you for alerting me to his The Philosophy of Grammar, which I'd never read but which I've since acquired and started to read. Do you have a copy?
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
H & P's expanded class of prepositions includes not only words universally accepted as prepositions but also:

1. the 'subordinating conjunctions' of more traditional grammar such as before and after: He left after you promised to help.
2. prepositions traditionally classed as adverbs when they have no complement: I haven't seen her since.
3. A number of forms traditionally classed as participles: Barring accidents, they should be back today. Given his age, a shorter prison sentence is appropriate.

This classification makes a lot of sense to me.

1. I have my own basic working definition of preposition: a word which expresses a relationship between things/events. The precise nature of the distinction between things and events I won't go into right now, suffice to say that there is a correspondence to noun phrases (things) and clauses (events). By this view, I would agree that after in the example makes sense as a preposition as it expresses the temporal relation between He left (Event 1) and you promised to help (Event 2). My definition above of prepositions is very much based on the function of the word and not at all on form. I wonder if H & P's reasoning for their classification is similarly based. If so, is there a movement in modern grammar to emphasise function over form as a basis by which to classify words?

2. If I understand correctly, they're suggesting that since is best considered a preposition since there is an implied complement, i.e., 'since the last time I saw her, whenever that was'. Have I got that right? This idea of implied words having a bearing on how we analyse grammar is very interesting to me and one that I, as someone more interested in meaning than form, naturally find appealing. Again, is there a movement in modern to emphasise meaning over form as a basis by which to classify words?

3. It seems to me that H & P may be considering these words as prepositions as they express kinds of logical relation between things. I too would be comfortable accepting them as such, according to my basic definition above of the function of prepositions.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I do feel, however, that you are worrying too much about function being more important than form, or vice versa. Both are important.

This is where I perceive we most obviously disagree. For the sake of argument, and of moving the conversation forward, let me put my view forward in its very strongest form.

Language is fundamentally about meaning. Meaning comes from use. Language can only have meaning as it is used by people in context. The learners on this forum have to learn how to do things with words, in order to have the desired effect on others. For production, they must learn how to use language to say and write what they mean. For reception, they must also learn how to infer meaning from the use of others. The way we use language is what is paramount.

Form is wholly arbitrary. That's why we can communicate the same ideas in French, Urdu, Japanese and Navajo, using completely different sound patterns and scripts. Sure, you have to learn how to pronounce and spell words accurately, and learn how to comprehend and read, but that is only a very small part of learning how to be a competent and effective user, I would argue. Learners don't need to know whether a word is an adjective—they need to know that it's modifying something.

Put simply, grammar is the way that words combine to create structure, which in turn gives meaning. As an academic pursuit, it's the study of how words function to produce meaning. Word form is culturally determined and therefore ephemeral by nature, constantly changing. Grammatical structure is immeasurably more consistent across individual languages and across time. The form that any language takes is just a curious by-product of cultural differentiation, somewhat interesting to a minority of linguists, but ultimately of little importance compared to structure.
 
Last edited:

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Isn't meaning akin to a marriage of structure and word? I don't see it as the sole generator of meaning.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
In any case, I thought we were discussing the importance of form and function in establishing word classes, i.e., to oversimplify, why is happy an adjective? Is it because it has comparative and superlative forms (form) or because it modifies nouns (function)? I maintain that both form and function are important criteria in establishing the class of a word.

Okay. I don't know if I might be confusing terminology here.

So you're saying that word class (such as 'adjective') is based on both form and function. So then 'word class' is not a label that describes form, right? This is what I can't understand. If both form and function have a bearing on class, then any class, such as 'adjective' cannot be a label of form.

I think up until now I've been considering word class as a classification of form. So that 'determiner' is a word class but 'determinative' and 'modifier', since they relate only to function, are not.

Before I go on, do you follow?
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Isn't meaning akin to a marriage of structure and word? I don't see it as the sole generator of meaning.

What is not the sole generator of meaning? Structure or word?

Whew! Anyway, let's not (yet) get into what meaning means!
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
This is an unfortunate choice of labels, which I'd prefer not to go into in this thread. Some writers use 'determiner' for the name of a word class and 'modifier' for a function. Others use 'determinative' for a word class and 'determiner' for a function. We'll have less potential for confusion if we don't spend time on the determiner/determinative' words.

Okay but it's the idea that one label is for word class and one label is for function that I'm asking about. The label 'modifier' describes function only whereas 'word class' describes both form and function. Is that right?
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Thanks, that's very helpful. I appreciate the time you've spent. Waiting for the rest before comment ...
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I think that's probably enough to be getting on with.

Yes, thanks again. That's interesting. I need a bit of time to process this.

In the meantime, is there anywhere you'd like to take this discussion? Please feel free. Otherwise I'm just going to try to pursue ways of clarifying what my problem is exactly with classing words based on formal properties as opposed to functional or semantic ones, and I'm conscious of boring you with something so academic/tedious.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Of course. The advantage of this medium is that we can respond whenever suits. And yes, let's stick to shorter, more manageable posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top